In case you haven’t noticed, I’m big on filters. In the world of digital photography, where anything can be changed on a whim, I like the option of making the best possible photograph with the camera, and not through post processing. In fact, having done retouching professionally, I like to think of it as a last resort, and not a means to an end.
News, Muse and Reviews for Aspiring Lensmen.
Wednesday, April 28, 2010
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
The Truth About Filters…Confirmed.
Buying new lenses has meant having to buy new filters, since the lens I will be using most often has a different filter size from any I’ve had in the past. There seems to be a lot of myths and misconceptions regarding filters, so before investing any more money, I decided to do my homework before making any more purchases.
Sunday, April 25, 2010
Happy Worldwide Pinhole Day!
 |
| Nautica |
Today, April 25, is Worldwide Pinhole Day. I had grand plans of attempting an infrared pinhole landscape, but the ensuing rain ended all that. So I decided on an indoor still life instead.
Saturday, April 24, 2010
Verona Park
 |
| Nikon Coolpix P5100 with Nikon FC-E8 Fisheye; circular fisheye @ 7.35mm |
Tuesday, April 20, 2010
Nikon N80 and Voigtländer 40mm f/2 SL-II
 |
| Nikon N80 35mm SLR with Voigtländer 40mm f/2 SL-II |
Monday, April 19, 2010
Micro NIKKOR DX 16-85mm f/3.5-4.5G ED, Complete
 |
| 1907 Penny |
With the recent arrival of the Nikon BR-6 Auto Diaphragm Ring, my new macro lens is complete. I now have complete control over aperture, the ability to focus and compose wide open, and a 52mm filter thread on which I can install the filter of my choice. I thought I would put it through its paces with a 1907 penny.
Wednesday, April 14, 2010
Mission Implausible
 |
| Nikon D90 False-color Infrared Image |
Monday, April 5, 2010
Easter in Infrared
Yesterday was a beautiful day for Easter. Prior to the Easter feast, I dusted off my P5100 ready for some family snapshots. Now that the fascination of the D90 has calmed down a bit, I find myself reaching for either camera, based on the type of use.
Sunday, April 4, 2010
First Impressions: Infrared by D90
Today was a beautiful, sunny day, just perfect to capture some infrared rays. So, outfitted with a Hoya R72 filter, I grabbed my D90 and decided to try my luck with some hand-held infrared photography.
I have had some experience with infrared every since reading a book and discovering that my P5100 could capture infrared. Having passed the “infrared remote” test, I decided to invest in a 52mm R72 filter. The results I got were interesting, however limited by the P5100’s eight second maximum exposure. I would set the camera to manual, select the widest aperture, and set the exposure to 8 seconds. Depending on how much light I had, I could vary the ISO to improve the quality, but it was always pretty high. Then I would set my camera on a tripod, shoot, and hope for the best. I was able to capture in color or black and white, and the color images were a deep monochrome magenta.
With the D90 and some further reseach, I discovered I’ve been making more work for myself than is necessary. With a maximum metered exposure of 30 seconds, up to 30 minutes of bulb exposure, an ISO up to 6400, and much more control over white balance, many more things are possible.
Using the same R72 filter, only in a 67mm size to fit my 16-85 f/3.5-5.6, I am able to capture hand-held images at about a 1/15-1/25 second exposure at 3200 ISO. The D90 has no problems with either focusing or metering. Depending on how I set the white balance, once I dial in the appropriate exposure compensation, I get consistent exposures.
It’s the white balance that’s the key, and I have more control over it with the D90, than with the P5100, so I have more variables to explore and overcome.
It seems that setting the white balance manually to 2500°K produces less saturated magenta images with good shape and detail, and distinct color information. While most of the image appears monochromatic, green grass and shrubbery appears a pale, desaturated green. Apparently setting the white balance this low forces some of the visible spectrum to come through. I’m not sure if this is true IR or not, but it is no less interesting. The grass definitely has that “Infrared” look, only in color. Nothing in Photoshop seems to improve this effect, although adjusting the tint in Camera Raw seems to control the saturation of this green, making it look less Infrared-like.
However, setting the white balance to the other extreme, 10,000°K, produces saturated red-orange images, not unlike redscale. And, longer exposures produce even more interesting color effects with colors ranging from highlight to shadow of white, yellow, orange, red-range and black, respectively. These images translate well to black and white images when you adjust the red, yellow and sometimes magenta sliders in Photoshop’s “Black and White” adjustment layer, or the red, orange, yellow and sometimes magenta in Camera Raw’s “Convert to Grayscale”. I think this might be a more faithful example of Infrared, as all the camera’s settings are coaxing it away from anything not in the red spectrum.
Another approach is to do as the books suggest, and perform a custom white balance off green grass or shrubbery. This yields an effect somewhere in between the two, with grass having a slight magenta hue, while the sky goes more of a red orange. This translates well to black and white also. I can simulate these settings without sampling by setting the white balance to 4350°K and adjusting the tint to the magenta side.
But, this is all in color, and there really is no color in infrared, hence the -red part. The main object of shooting in color is to get some color information, so I can tweak the conversion to black and white, or do some false-color post processing. The other option is to shoot in black and white, and let the camera do the conversion, and this works quite well also. With this option, I can choose from a yellow, orange, red or green filter, yet another set of variables. I can say for sure that the red filter cuts down on exposure times, with the green filter producing darker images. But, which yields the best contrast requires more experimentation.
And this is all with one lens. Other lenses will undoubtedly produce different results. Perhaps no lens (pinhole) or even plastic lens (Lensbaby) will produce more variations. I have much work ahead of me. For now, my goal is to be able to predictably produce these two distinct styles of color infrared images, by establishing the appropriate camera settings, and come up with an optimal setting for monochrome infrared images.
I have had some experience with infrared every since reading a book and discovering that my P5100 could capture infrared. Having passed the “infrared remote” test, I decided to invest in a 52mm R72 filter. The results I got were interesting, however limited by the P5100’s eight second maximum exposure. I would set the camera to manual, select the widest aperture, and set the exposure to 8 seconds. Depending on how much light I had, I could vary the ISO to improve the quality, but it was always pretty high. Then I would set my camera on a tripod, shoot, and hope for the best. I was able to capture in color or black and white, and the color images were a deep monochrome magenta.
With the D90 and some further reseach, I discovered I’ve been making more work for myself than is necessary. With a maximum metered exposure of 30 seconds, up to 30 minutes of bulb exposure, an ISO up to 6400, and much more control over white balance, many more things are possible.
Using the same R72 filter, only in a 67mm size to fit my 16-85 f/3.5-5.6, I am able to capture hand-held images at about a 1/15-1/25 second exposure at 3200 ISO. The D90 has no problems with either focusing or metering. Depending on how I set the white balance, once I dial in the appropriate exposure compensation, I get consistent exposures.
It’s the white balance that’s the key, and I have more control over it with the D90, than with the P5100, so I have more variables to explore and overcome.
It seems that setting the white balance manually to 2500°K produces less saturated magenta images with good shape and detail, and distinct color information. While most of the image appears monochromatic, green grass and shrubbery appears a pale, desaturated green. Apparently setting the white balance this low forces some of the visible spectrum to come through. I’m not sure if this is true IR or not, but it is no less interesting. The grass definitely has that “Infrared” look, only in color. Nothing in Photoshop seems to improve this effect, although adjusting the tint in Camera Raw seems to control the saturation of this green, making it look less Infrared-like.
However, setting the white balance to the other extreme, 10,000°K, produces saturated red-orange images, not unlike redscale. And, longer exposures produce even more interesting color effects with colors ranging from highlight to shadow of white, yellow, orange, red-range and black, respectively. These images translate well to black and white images when you adjust the red, yellow and sometimes magenta sliders in Photoshop’s “Black and White” adjustment layer, or the red, orange, yellow and sometimes magenta in Camera Raw’s “Convert to Grayscale”. I think this might be a more faithful example of Infrared, as all the camera’s settings are coaxing it away from anything not in the red spectrum.
Another approach is to do as the books suggest, and perform a custom white balance off green grass or shrubbery. This yields an effect somewhere in between the two, with grass having a slight magenta hue, while the sky goes more of a red orange. This translates well to black and white also. I can simulate these settings without sampling by setting the white balance to 4350°K and adjusting the tint to the magenta side.
But, this is all in color, and there really is no color in infrared, hence the -red part. The main object of shooting in color is to get some color information, so I can tweak the conversion to black and white, or do some false-color post processing. The other option is to shoot in black and white, and let the camera do the conversion, and this works quite well also. With this option, I can choose from a yellow, orange, red or green filter, yet another set of variables. I can say for sure that the red filter cuts down on exposure times, with the green filter producing darker images. But, which yields the best contrast requires more experimentation.
And this is all with one lens. Other lenses will undoubtedly produce different results. Perhaps no lens (pinhole) or even plastic lens (Lensbaby) will produce more variations. I have much work ahead of me. For now, my goal is to be able to predictably produce these two distinct styles of color infrared images, by establishing the appropriate camera settings, and come up with an optimal setting for monochrome infrared images.
Thursday, April 1, 2010
The Truth About Lens Hoods
The use of a lens hood is absolutely essential to photography. Professionals, amateurs and consumers alike should all use lens hoods.
The functionality of the hood is enhanced by its size or complexity. The best type of hood to use is either a petal-shaped hood used on large-diameter wide-angle lens, or an extra-long hood on a very long lens. Faster lenses tend to use larger diameter objective lenses, and the larger diameter of the required hood also enhances its functionality.
Bayonet hoods are best, as they can usually be reversed to fit over the lens for storage in the camera bag. This ensures that you will always have your hood with you, but even more importantly that you will use it, since it usually needs to removed prior to using the lens, which means that you’re only one step away from flipping it around and putting it back on.
If there’s no bayonet hood available for you lens, you may choose from the many third-party hoods available. I would recommend the rectangular, expandable bellows-type, which in many instances may be larger than the camera and lens itself. You cannot go wrong with an enormous lens hood.
There are many practical reason why you need to use a hood; here are just a few (please note that these are not necessarily in order of priority)
Some professional photographers however choose not to use a hood. Instead, they use their hand to block the light source from creating a flare. This technique works best if you are left-handed and shooting hand-held with a very long telephoto lens at f/8 or above, using a heavy camera (for stability) that is fitted with a battery grip (for extended battery life). The extra length of the lens combined with the battery grip compensate for the lack of the lens hood.
Seriously?
While many may debate the technical benefits of using a lens hood, none can dispute its coolness factor. Happy April Fools’ Day! Seriously, like coatings on filters, lens hoods can help to avoid flares under certain, but not all, shooting conditions. Like filters, they can protect your expensive lenses; in fact, they can protect your expensive filters.
I remember it was always a challenge to find a bayonet hood for a used lens, but a nice bonus if I could. So far, all the Nikon lenses I plan to purchase will come with bayonet hoods. Judging by the outside diameter of the lens, and the fact that the hoods reverse over the lens barrel, I should still be able to use the hoods with 67mm filters and a step up ring, even though the filter sizes of these lenses is 52mm and 58mm. Here’s how I’ll do it:
If I don’t screw them on too tightly (and how could I) I should have no problem getting them off.
So remember, lens hoods are our friends. Let’s all use them for the right reasons.
The functionality of the hood is enhanced by its size or complexity. The best type of hood to use is either a petal-shaped hood used on large-diameter wide-angle lens, or an extra-long hood on a very long lens. Faster lenses tend to use larger diameter objective lenses, and the larger diameter of the required hood also enhances its functionality.
Bayonet hoods are best, as they can usually be reversed to fit over the lens for storage in the camera bag. This ensures that you will always have your hood with you, but even more importantly that you will use it, since it usually needs to removed prior to using the lens, which means that you’re only one step away from flipping it around and putting it back on.
If there’s no bayonet hood available for you lens, you may choose from the many third-party hoods available. I would recommend the rectangular, expandable bellows-type, which in many instances may be larger than the camera and lens itself. You cannot go wrong with an enormous lens hood.
There are many practical reason why you need to use a hood; here are just a few (please note that these are not necessarily in order of priority)
- You are shooting toward the sun or some other bright light source.
- Your height is less than 5'-10".
- You are single, and in the proximity of one or more attractive females.
- You are in the company of fellow photographers.
- You have low self-esteem.
Some professional photographers however choose not to use a hood. Instead, they use their hand to block the light source from creating a flare. This technique works best if you are left-handed and shooting hand-held with a very long telephoto lens at f/8 or above, using a heavy camera (for stability) that is fitted with a battery grip (for extended battery life). The extra length of the lens combined with the battery grip compensate for the lack of the lens hood.
Seriously?
While many may debate the technical benefits of using a lens hood, none can dispute its coolness factor. Happy April Fools’ Day! Seriously, like coatings on filters, lens hoods can help to avoid flares under certain, but not all, shooting conditions. Like filters, they can protect your expensive lenses; in fact, they can protect your expensive filters.
I remember it was always a challenge to find a bayonet hood for a used lens, but a nice bonus if I could. So far, all the Nikon lenses I plan to purchase will come with bayonet hoods. Judging by the outside diameter of the lens, and the fact that the hoods reverse over the lens barrel, I should still be able to use the hoods with 67mm filters and a step up ring, even though the filter sizes of these lenses is 52mm and 58mm. Here’s how I’ll do it:
- Mount the bayonet lens hood.
- Install the 67mm filter on the required step-up ring.
- Attach the pinch-type lens cap to the 67mm filter.
- With the lens facing down, screw the filter/step-up ring comb onto the front of the lens, using the lens cap as a “wrench”, since I can’t grip the edge of the filters which is blocked by the hood, and I don’t want to get fingerprints on the filters.
If I don’t screw them on too tightly (and how could I) I should have no problem getting them off.
So remember, lens hoods are our friends. Let’s all use them for the right reasons.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)